DV vs. Film amateur

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

It's called color grading. 99% of the shots you see in movies have been color graded to look either more natural or more stylized and creative, a look the director has chosen to further strengthen the narrative. There are many programs out there to do this one is called Magic Bullet by Red Giant Software I use that, it was created by folks behind visual effects for Sin City and 300 I believe. You can also color grade film itself as well. Though digital gives you a lot more creative freedom.

 

[LethalWolfe]

You're assuming I have negative connotations on digital...

My apologies for jumping the gun then. What you said is typically what film 'purists' say to poo-poo any sort of digital acquisition which is why I made the assumption.

which I don't so yeah moving on to the Kane remark. I don't really get the point of this question to be honest. In my original post I pointed out the reasoning for thought on this. Citizen Kane is cinematic for other reasons, never did I say Depth of field was the end all be all but from people's reaction to it, it seems to be synonymous with high end cinema visuals.

You said that second to the differences between how film and digital imagers process light that shallow DoF was the most important aspect of getting the 'cinematic' look so I asked the obviously loaded question about Citizen Kane.

My point is that cinema, like any other art, has conventions but not unbreakable rules. Emulating posses limitations that creating does not. For example, if I want to make a war film that emulates the look of Saving Private Ryan then I am of course bound by the conventions of that 'style.' If I want to make a war film 'from scratch' I am bound by no pre-set conventions. But if I choose to go against general cinematic conventions it needs to be for a reason just like choosing to utilize 'poetic license' as a creative tool is different than using improper grammar or spelling out of ignorance. For example, general color convention in cinema is that warm colors represent safety and cold colors represent danger, but in Black Hawk Down those roles are reversed. Here is a very good article talking about why that choice was made how color was used to communicate w/the audience. Link.

Speaking of why...

Maybe I'm getting too cerebral w/this, but I see so many people asking 'what' instead of 'why' even though 'why' is the much more important question. What camera was used to shoot scene X isn't as important as why that scene was in the movie to begin with. And why it's lit the way it's lit. And why the frame is composed the way it's composed. What is nearly useless w/o why.

You know all those DVD "special features" where they show raw film footage and then the same scene as edited/processed for the movie? And the movie scene always looks darker (sort of more blue-ish/brown-ish, I guess) than the raw footage? Is that the standard movie "look" that is done in post processing? What is this post-processing called? Can anyone set me straight about this?

Just to add to what TH3D4RKKN1GH7 said, here is a good tutorial by Stu Maschwitz (Creative Director of Red Giant Software and VFX Supervisor of a number of feature films) talking about how color correction is used to create the 'looks' common in blockbuster movies these days. Even though this is a tutorial for a specific piece of software the color theory he talks about is platform agnostic. Link.


Lethal

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

To be honest I'm more of a digital guy mainly because its easier on my wallet. I don't think there are limitations in having a shallow depth of field. It adds to a film and makes it more engrossing, it allows the audience to easily focus on what they're supposed to be looking at in the frame. Not to mention its beautiful. It's not a rule but DP's have become really attached to it.

There are some rules in film that need not be broken. LIKE TARDINESS! Being in school for Film now, it surprises me how late kids are to a shoot. UNACCEPTABLE!

Gordon Willis used to teach at my school, but stopped because students asked him how he did things instead of why. Most of his students were already established cinematographers which is even funnier. He taught a master's course.

 

[Macinposh]

You know all those DVD "special features" where they show raw film footage and then the same scene as edited/processed for the movie? And the movie scene always looks darker (sort of more blue-ish/brown-ish, I guess) than the raw footage? Is that the standard movie "look" that is done in post processing? What is this post-processing called? Can anyone set me straight about this?

What lethal and dkngoth3cpo said.

Über Simplifiedly:

In general the movie is shot to film (still..).

When shooting,generally the primary concern is to get as much information to the film (negative) as possible. So that you have some details in the shadows and some details in the highlights. That way you have as much material to work on in the post processing. Some cinematographers use more heavily filters (on camera and lights) to pre set the tone, ia. light coming from window being blue and inside is very warm.Some go even further like Darius Khondji in Seven where he used preflashed negative for shooting: They flashed the film before shooting (or during the shoot with a extra in lens light) with a green/brown light make a "base hue" to the film,to help them achieve the look in the post.

After shooting the negative is carefully developed.
From those negatives,direct positives are made (looks like classic slide film) for direct projecting and dailes are made and put to video and sent to director&cinematographer for the next days previews,to check out that everything is on track.

Theese are what you might have seen.

Or.

Materiel gotten out from video assists.
Video assist is a videocamera that is installed on the moviecamera.It is designed to provide the operator+director a view that the camera sees,shot from the groundglass of the moviecamera.Videoassist provides the picture to the small screen you see on the top of the moviecameras.That picture is not either "color correcte" but a very raw version.


After that certain cinematographers might make a extra negative of the original for example do bleach by pass,wich in short is abusing+under/over developing+coloring to it or other unorthodox things.
Or some other manipulation of the negative.
After the DPs (director of photography/cinematographer) thing they have base built,they send the film to grading,in wich they set a certain tone to the film in the laboratory.

Nowadays,after they have the raw edit (or final edit) that they scan in the film and send it for the final grading with computers.
They use systems like davinci,or even maybe FCPs Color to do it.
There the film is graded/color corrected on a shot by shot basis, they adjust the colors,blacks,highlights under the supervision of the DP (some cases the director) to make sure the film achieves it´s final look.


After all the circus they make a final negative of the film.That negative (and its copies) are used to make the projection reels of the films.The reels that we see in our theaters.

Obviously it is a lot more complicated but that is "approximately" how it happens...

 

[LethalWolfe]

To be honest I'm more of a digital guy mainly because its easier on my wallet. I don't think there are limitations in having a shallow depth of field. It adds to a film and makes it more engrossing, it allows the audience to easily focus on what they're supposed to be looking at in the frame. Not to mention its beautiful. It's not a rule but DP's have become really attached to it.

I'm not saying using shallow DoF is a limitation. I'm saying that thinking one must use shallow DoF is a limitation. Shallow DoF is easier because you don't have to worry as much about blocking, frame composition, lighting, set design, etc., but that's what makes a movie like Citizen Kane so great visually. The deep focus isn't distracting because the lighting, composition, etc., guide the eye to the relevant part of the frame.

There are some rules in film that need not be broken. LIKE TARDINESS! Being in school for Film now, it surprises me how late kids are to a shoot. UNACCEPTABLE!

Agreed that to be early is to be on time, cables should always be properly dressed, and lights should always be properly secured, but I was speaking about the rules of film grammar not the rules of professionalism.


Lethal